Some Opinions from the Insurance Industry

[Fishspearit]

Experience indicates that the catamaran is more likely to sustain a lightning strike;

That's the line that has me scratching my head

Can anyone explain why that would be?

[David_Old_Jersey]

No idea about electrickery - but maybe that should read "More likely to make a claim following a lightening strike"?

Do they earth differently? or just have more toys onboard to fry and claim for?....could of course just be a statistical blip accross his desk.

Or God has a Mono

[TabbyCat]

I don't have any statistical data to share, just anecdotal information:

1. Most cats have lots of metal running horizontally between the hulls, such as very large cables connecting the battery banks across the hulls, metal rods between the rudders, and the crossbeam at the bow. The theory is that all this horizontally aligned metal presents a more appealing target for lightning.

2. Most cats don't have metal in their keels, so are not as well grounded as a monohull.

I have personally taken a surprising number of claims for cats, especially when hauled out ashore. I know of two recent incidents in which cats were hauled out for less than a week (one for bottom painting, another for a mechanical repair) and they were struck by lightning. We have a "strikeshield" on our cat which is a heavy cable that attaches to the bottom of the mast & hangs in the water. Next time we haul out, I'm going to make sure it is well buried in the ground.

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by TabbyCat

. We have a "strikeshield" on our cat which is a heavy cable that attaches to the bottom of the mast & hangs in the water. Next time we haul out, I'm going to make sure it is well buried in the ground.

Many years ago in Tampa Bay there was this little (uninsured) 18ft Westerly that was sailed in all sorts of weather. It had three stays and at the base of each one was clamped a cable that dragged in the water.

Don't know if it worked or not but never a strike............

[Weyalan]

I don't believe that this type of action will prevent a lightning strike. I think the idea is that if you do get struck, the effect will be lessened.

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by Weyalan

I don't believe that this type of action will prevent a lightning strike. I think the idea is that if you do get struck, the effect will be lessened.

I have heard that too.

I have heard also that if all is well grounded, the "cloud" sees the boat as the same as flat seas - like it isn't there.

This has nothing to do with marinas or "flash over" from other nearby strikes.


But is off topic too.

Sorry.

[David M]

Originally Posted by GordMay

* Notwithstanding their growing popularity, catamarans are more exposed to loss than monohulls. Experience indicates that the catamaran is more likely to sustain a lightning strike; the catamaran is more exposed to dismasting than other vessels; the beam of the catamaran makes secure mooring more difficult to obtain; catamarans present a significant capsizing risk. (Any vessel with an escape hatch in the hull bottom should be viewed with concern.); the stability of the catamaran makes it popular with those with less than extensive seagoing skills; ad infinitum
“

I would like to see these statistics and not just opinions. Do catamarans actually have more claims than monohulls? Are there any available statistics? This may make or break whether I buy a catamaran or not. Not so much the premiums, but are cats statistically more dangerous?

How on earth a catamaran is more prone to lightning strikes is beyond me. Any ideas?

David

[Alan Wheeler]

There are a lot of "old wives tales" out there. Most of it is rubbish. The odd one or two have merrit. But then a strike occurs that simply didn't play by the rules and it leaves scientists scratching their heads again. Some things that are known.
Lightning can travel vast distances. As much as ten miles. Those few feet from top of mast to water is nothing after traveling so far.
Lightening arresters or brushes at the top of the mast don't work.
If the electrical energy doesn't get your electrics, the electromagnetic field sure will.
The cone of protection is a bout as useless as "Controls" (maxwell smart) cone of silence.
Lightning does not always go for the highest mast.
Lightning does not always go for the best conductor.
A large conductor over the side of the boat will not completely protect you. A cable the same diameter of the mast might be better, but not really user that friendly.
If you are struck and the Electrical discharge doesn't get yo, the heat probably will. Strikes can cause a lot of explosive type damage and the heat vaporising components can literally blow panels, bulkheads and hulls apart.

[Lancerbye]

When you use basic statistics to validate your policy which insurance companies do, it is easy to see how more cats are prone to lightening strikes, because the larger cat population are more common in the Florida/Carabean area where lightening strikes are more common. In the Pacific Northwest Cats are rare and so are lightening strikes.

[Hud3]

Originally Posted by David M

I would like to see these statistics and not just opinions. Do catamarans actually have more claims than monohulls? Are there any available statistics? This may make or break whether I buy a catamaran or not. Not so much the premiums, but are cats statistically more dangerous?

How on earth a catamaran is more prone to lightning strikes is beyond me. Any ideas?

David

The author of the material that Gord posted is a frequent contributor to the Caribbean Compass, and from my reading of his articles, he appears to be competent and to value accurate data, so I would take his statements at face value, and assume they are based on hard data.

Regarding his statements that catararans have more claims and higher risk of capsize than monohulls, the question to ask is, "Why"? My answer would be that "operator error" probably has a lot to do with it. Sailing a cruising catamaran safely requires some different techniques and skills/experience compared with sailing a monohull. Mishaps will naturally occur as those skills are developed.

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by David M

I would like to see these statistics and not just opinions. Do catamarans actually have more claims than monohulls? Are there any available statistics? This may make or break whether I buy a catamaran or not. Not so much the premiums, but are cats statistically more dangerous?

How on earth a catamaran is more prone to lightning strikes is beyond me. Any ideas?

David

From another thread.....Can't believe you missed it.




These multi/mono threads tend to generate a lot of "heat", but not much "light" (as in "enlightenment").

I recently came across an interesting post in the SSCA forum that describes the author's attempt to analyze actual data from records of boating accidents and insurance company acturial information. The poster, Sandy Daugherty, was an employee of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The data were not perfect, but Sandy was able to make some interesting observations and draw a few conclusions.

The entire post is included below, with the kind permission of the author. Thanks, Sandy!

Hud


" Before I retired from the NTSB I had the opportunity to study the complete Coast Guard database of boating accidents and Summary
Data of proprietary actuarial information from sources within the Lloyds' Groups, with a focus on vessels with accomodations including permanent berths, head(s) and galley. I tried to exclude beach cats and tris, and daysailers by excluding boats under 24 feet.

The data was not user-friendly and required a lot of external correlation because many vessels were incorrectly classified. That ultimately prevented releasing any conclusions because GI+MGI=GO (garbage in plus more garbage in still equals garbage out.) This was also a problem with the older NTSB databases that included pre-digital-age reporting. However, I discovered in the process that there were few differences between monohul and multihull rates of occurrence. That's easy to understand; human error trumps mechanical failure and design deficiency evermore.

Here are some of the facts that did become apparent:
Vessels designed for racing and record attempts break. Vessels built for cruising don't break. People who race drive themselves and their vessels to the limit. [please forgive the pun] Cruisers drive their homes to the next nice place.

The rates of actual vessel loss (outside of competition) remained the same for monohulls and multihulls, over many years, with catamarans emerging slightly ahead of other vessels in the last years of available data. Reports of large numbers of catamaran roll-overs are probably anecdotal as accident statistics reveal a (slight) decline, with a slight increase in sinkings among monohulls. There was a lot of confusion in the data between catamarans and trimarans, which I can only suggest an interpretation for:

Vessels purpose built for competition are not recorded as such. Each accident had to be researched individually. Many were not insured, meaning that Insurance data would not take them into account. In fact, Many sinkings of monohulls were extremely difficult to document because they were never widely reported. This is changing as news media is becoming more interested, especially in colorful visuals.

A very small percentage of trimarans are sold for cruising, as a very small percentage of catamarans are sold for racing. The best correlation between racing and competition vessels was a ratio of lwl to mast height.

Where I was able to distinguish between cruising and competition vessels, I found that the rate of personal injuries and single fatalities was higher among monohulls. That should merit further study because those injuries appeared to occur in better weather conditions, not in worse. These accidents included cabin injuries, man-overboards, and deck injuries such as inadvertant jibes.

My conclusions were impaired by the quality of data, and my proposal of a National Transportation Safety Board Special Study was properly overshadowed by more important issues. But there is enough factual data to prove that cruising multihulls are no more, and possible less dangerous than cruising monohulls in all reported conditions of weather, traffic, and human frailty, regardless of location."
__________________

[Nauticatarcher]

"A large conductor over the side of the boat will not completely protect you. A cable the same diameter of the mast might be better"
one of the boats here in Opua uses a length of chain in a plastic pipe to stop it damaging hull, hung over side of boat and clipped to main shrould to minimise lightening strike damage, but I'm of the opinion if you get hit you get hit and nothing is really going to help

[Tellie]

We used to do commercial electrical repair due to lightining strikes all over S.Fla. The one thing I know for sure, if you plan on providing a path for the static voltage from a direct lighting strike away from anything, much less a boat of any kind, you'll need a conductor the size of a large tree trunk. Aside from a Faraday cage around your boat and a large lightning arrester there's really not much you can do but play the odds that sailors aways have.

[decktapper]

Originally Posted by Fishspearit

That's the line that has me scratching my head

Can anyone explain why that would be?

Most of the boats I see are tied up in a marina. if where the lightning strikes in a marina is random, and a catamaran takes up two slips, won't it be twice as likely to get a hit?

I am not an actuarial, but I can see how common misconceptions, and innuendo can make it's way into underwriting decisions.
I believe allot of it has to do with what many accept as common knowledge, and the numbers that are not considered.
Take Ferro boats. Although many were built in the 70's and 80's, few went in the water, and even fewer were insured. If the insurance industry takes figures from their books to determine the risk, the smaller the overall number, the greater impact a single occurrence will have on the statistics.
Consider hull materials. Most wood boats are worked on by the owners. There are limited resources around to do repair on wood boats, because there is less demand, and the skills are highly specialized. This does not make the wood Hull any less sound, but it does affect the repairability of the vessel. Couple this with the replacement cost of a well maintained wood boat, and the risk is very high. Then take the numbers again, and consider the number of insured wood boats out there. In contrast to the number of fiberglass vessels, it is relatively low. Again, each individual incident has a much higher impact on the numbers used to calculate the risk.
The bottom line is that these figures are simply a fact of life we have to deal with. It is a standard that all insurance companies use to set their rates. The only variable we, as a community can have an impact on, is the human factor. The more experienced sailors there are out there, using their boats, as opposed to letting them rot in the marina, the fewer claims for sinking at the dock will be presented.